Impact of Mediating and Confounding Variables on the Volume-Outcome Association in the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: High-volume centers (HVC), academic centers (AC), and longer travel distances (TD) have been associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). Effects of mediating variables on these associations remain undefined. The purpose of this study is to examine the direct effects of hospital volume, facility type, and travel distance on overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing surgery for PAC and characterize the indirect effects of patient-, disease-, and treatment-related mediating variables. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, patients with non-metastatic PAC who underwent resection were stratified by annual hospital volume (< 11, 11-19, and ≥ 20 cases/year), facility type (AC versus non-AC), and TD (≥ 40 versus < 40 miles). Associations with survival were evaluated using multiple regression models. Effects of mediating variables were assessed using mediation analysis. RESULTS: In total, 19,636 patients were included. Treatment at HVC or AC was associated with lower risk of death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.90, confidence interval (CI) 0.88-0.92; HR 0.89, CI 0.86-0.91, respectively]. TD did not impact OS. Patient-, disease-, and treatment-related variables explained 25.5% and 41.8% of the survival benefit attained from treatment at HVC and AC, reducing the survival benefit directly attributable to each variable to 4.9% and 6.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of PAC at HVC and AC was associated with improved OS, but the magnitude of this benefit was less when mediating variables were considered. From a healthcare utilization and cost-resource perspective, further research is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from selective referral to HVC or AC.

Impact of Adherence to Operative Standards and Stage-Specific Guideline-Recommended Therapy in Nonmetastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Achieving optimal surgical outcomes in pancreatic adenocarcinoma requires a combination of both curative-intent resection to oncologic standards and stage-specific neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. This investigation sought to examine factors associated with receipt of standard-adherent surgery (SAS) and guideline-recommended therapy (GRT) and determine the impact of compliance on patient survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the 2006-2016 National Cancer Database, 21,304 patients underwent resection for nonmetastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. SAS was defined as pancreatic resection with negative margins and ≥ 15 lymph nodes examined. Stage-specific GRT was defined by current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Multivariable models were used to determine predictors of adherence to SAS and GRT and prognostic impact on overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, SAS was achieved in 39% and GRT in 65% of patients, but only 30% received both SAS and GRT. Increasing age, minority race, uninsured status, and greater comorbidities were associated with a decreased odds of receiving both SAS and GRT (all p < 0.05). SAS (HR 0.79; CI 0.76-0.81; p < 0.001) and GRT (HR 0.67; CI 0.65-0.69; p < 0.001) were each independently associated with a survival advantage. Receipt of both SAS and GRT was associated with significant improvement in median OS compared with receiving neither (2.2 years vs 1.1 years; p < 0.001) which was independently associated with a 78% increased risk of death (HR 1.78; CI 1.70-1.86; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite survival benefits associated with adherence to operative standards and receipt of guideline-recommended therapy, compliance remains poor. Future efforts must be directed toward improved education and implementation efforts around both operative standards and therapy guidelines.

Meeting the New Commission on Cancer Operative Standards: Where Do We Stand Now?

INTRODUCTION: The 2020 Commission on Cancer accreditation standards 5.7 and 5.8 address total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and lymph node sampling for lung cancer. The purpose of this review was to assess our institution's compliance with these operative standards, which will be required in 2022 and 2023, and provide recommendations to other military training facilities seeking to comply with these standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 2018-2020 single institution chart review was performed of operative and pathology reports. Identified deficits were addressed in meetings with colorectal and thoracic surgery leadership, and cases were followed to reassess compliance. RESULTS: A total of 12 rectal and 48 lung cancer cases met the inclusion criteria and were examined. Pre-intervention compliance for standards 5.7 and 5.8 was 58% and 35%, respectively, because of inadequate synoptic reporting and lymph node sampling. After intervention, compliance was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution requires changes to comply with new standards, including in areas of documentation and systematic pulmonary lymph node sampling. We provide lessons learned from our own institutional experience, including practical tips and recommendations to achieve compliance. All military training facilities performing lung and rectal oncologic resections should conduct an internal review of applicable cases in preparation for upcoming American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer site visits.

Assessing Surgical Task Load and Performance: A Comparison of Simulation and Maritime Operation.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the effects of simulated and actual vessel motion at high seas on task load and surgical performance. METHODS: This project was performed in phases. Phase I was a feasibility study. Phase II utilized a motion base simulator to replicate vessel motion. Phase III was conducted aboard the U.S. Naval Ship Brunswick. After performing surgical tasks on a surgical simulation mannequin, participants completed the Surgical Task Load Index (TLX) designed to collect workload data. Simulated surgeries were evaluated by subject matter experts. RESULTS: TLX scores were higher in Phase III than Phase II, particularly at higher sea states. Surgical performance was not significantly different between Phase II (84%) and Phase III (89%). Simulated motions were comparable in both phases. CONCLUSIONS: Simulated motion was not associated with a significant difference in surgical performance or deck motion, suggesting that this simulator replicates the conditions experienced during surgery at sea on the U.S. Naval Ship Brunswick. However, Surgical TLX scores were dramatically different between the two phases, suggesting increased workload at sea, which may be the result of time at sea, the stress of travel, or other factors. Surgical performance was not affected by sea state in either phase.